Disclaimer. Don't rely on these old notes in lieu of reading the literature, but they can jog your memory. As a grad student long ago, my peers and I collaborated to write and exchange summaries of political science research. I posted them to a wiki-style website. "Wikisum" is now dead but archived here. I cannot vouch for these notes' accuracy, nor can I even say who wrote them. If you have more recent summaries to add to this collection, send them my way I guess. Sorry for the ads; they cover the costs of keeping this online.
Hardin. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-48.
A morally questionable argument against the freedom to "breed." Hardin takes as a truthful premise Malthus's (perhaps discredited) concern that population is growing exponentially as resources grow only finitely. Applying the idea of the commons, he argues that our use of "breeding rights" is a common good, and that those who overuse their right to breed are driving us toward extinction.
Moreover, these breeders will drive people with a "conscience" out of the gene pool, since anybody with a conscience will recognize his responsibility not to overuse the commons (and will therefore not breed, leaving only large families on earth).
Thus, the only solution is to recognize that "breeding" is not a freedom or right. When society decided that robbery was not a right, we all became more free; similarly, using government administrative powers to regulate individual family decisions will make us all more free.
From a purely economic point of view (leaving aside moral questions about this argument), his most glaring error is his argument that laissez faire economics won't create incentives for smaller families. Even by 1968, it should have been apparent that urban families were not bearing as many children as farm families had. Today, there is a commonly heard argument that parents in developed countries chose to have fewer children because children are costly, whereas parents in underdeveloped countries want children because they provide benefits (social security). According to this argument, this explains why Europe (and the US, if you don't count recent immigrants) has near-zero growth rates.
At the same time, concerns have grown about the problems raised by Europe's non-growth. Is this evidence that Hardin is wrong, or are Europe's economic problems merely transactions costs accompanying a shift to a new equilibrium?
Research on similar subjects